Apple's $1.05 billion patent verdict against Samsung made headlines worldwide in August, but the products at issue in that trial aren't the cutting edge of technology anymore. The two sides have claims and counter-claims stacked up against each other well beyond the blockbuster August trial. On Monday night, Samsung filed court papers to officially add Apple's newest iPhone to the list of gadgets it wants to kick off the market.

Samsung is claiming the iPhone 5 infringes eight of its patents: two patents that are part of cell phone standards, and six "feature" patents said to cover things like how smartphone displays change when music is being played.

The new claims were added to an existing lawsuit [PDF], originally filed by Apple in February 2012. This case, filed in the same San Jose federal court that heard the August trial, includes both sides' patent claims over newer smartphone and tablet products, like Samsung's Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy S III. Discovery is scheduled to stretch through 2013, and the lawsuit is currently scheduled for trial in 2014.

Accusing the iPhone 5 is a no-brainer for Samsung; the company has to accuse Apple's most valuable products to have any legal leverage against the Cupertino giant, especially now that it is on the defensive after a massive trial loss. The company told Apple it would be accusing the product on September 18, three days before it was even able to get a physical phone to analyze it.

Maybe this will work...(slow work day). I declare facepalms all around for everyone. Have fun and as an added bonus they cost nothing! No Apple/Samsung bickering, just a concerted effort to show how foolish this is all getting. My contribution:

I hope they win and that both latest Samsung and Apple phones get banned in the US. That would be pure win.

I've been hoping they all lose and everything is thrown out, but the more I think about it this seems better. They both win and all devices are banned until the patents get worked around by each party. Unfortunately we would probably see some cross-licensing happen very quickly instead of the preferred option of an all stop and the public getting mad they can't get their latest shiny toy.

I hope they win and that both latest Samsung and Apple phones get banned in the US. That would be pure win.

I've been hoping they all lose and everything is thrown out, but the more I think about it this seems better. They both win and all devices are banned until the patents get worked around by each party. Unfortunately we would probably see some cross-licensing happen very quickly instead of the preferred option of an all stop and the public getting mad they can't get their latest shiny toy.

I too hope for something to that effect to spark some reform. However, given that:

Quote:

Discovery is scheduled to stretch through 2013, and the lawsuit is currently scheduled for trial in 2014.

The one thing I have yet to see anybody actually explain is why patent exhaustion is not brought into play here. Apple uses Qualcomm chips, and Qualcomm would be paying Samsung for the patents, right? So what is Samsung's argument here?

The one thing I have yet to see anybody actually explain is why patent exhaustion is not brought into play here. Apple uses Qualcomm chips, and Qualcomm would be paying Samsung for the patents, right? So what is Samsung's argument here?

I believe Samsung is saying that Qualcomm covers everyone except Apple (for some reason) or something like that.

Apple has a good half dozen, or more, of these suits under it's belt now.

Their only real loss is Apple v Microsoft and that's because they had licensed the GUI to Microsoft without understanding the legal language involved. They prevailed against Digital Research, however, for similar copyright issues.

So if Apple can own a trash can in 1985, I fail to see why Apple cannot own the iPhone/iOS icons in 2012.

The one thing I have yet to see anybody actually explain is why patent exhaustion is not brought into play here. Apple uses Qualcomm chips, and Qualcomm would be paying Samsung for the patents, right? So what is Samsung's argument here?

I believe Samsung is saying that Qualcomm covers everyone except Apple (for some reason) or something like that.

IANAL (what a surprise) but the last time I bought Qualcomm chips, this was one of the key things that came with the deal - Qualcomm had already identified all patents relating to their implementation and correctly licensed them. In addition, they gave us IPR indemnity so if someone did sue us relating to a Qualcomm chip implementation, then Qualcomm would pick up the case and all legal fees.

I'll be very interested to see how Samsung think they can specifically exclude FRAND patent licensing for one very specific company.

IANAL (what a surprise) but the last time I bought Qualcomm chips, this was one of the key things that came with the deal - Qualcomm had already identified all patents relating to their implementation and correctly licensed them. In addition, they gave us IPR indemnity so if someone did sue us relating to a Qualcomm chip implementation, then Qualcomm would pick up the case and all legal fees.

I'll be very interested to see how Samsung think they can specifically exclude FRAND patent licensing for one very specific company.

From what I've read, Samsung is not suing only on FRAND patents. An article on AppleInsider states:

Quote:

... it did in fact infringe the two UMTS wireless patents and six "feature patents"...

Granted, I have no idea why the words feature patents are in quotes, but would Qualcomm's licensing cover a feature patent?

Then again, there have been other articles saying that Samsung has their lawyers by the nads, so anything Samsung wants, the lawyers will do. And considering Samsung has not won a case against Apple outside of Korea, maybe Samsung is really just aimlessly hoping for revenge for their recent loss?

Honest question: What is the point of filing a lawsuit to ban sales of a technology product when the suit won't even be heard until well over a year after said product is released? Unless you could ban the iPhone 5 for like the first six months after its intended launch, I don't see how it's worth investing the time or money in something like this.

Honest question: What is the point of filing a lawsuit to ban sales of a technology product when the suit won't even be heard until well over a year after said product is released? Unless you could ban the iPhone 5 for like the first six months after its intended launch, I don't see how it's worth investing the time or money in something like this.

Preliminary injunction. Up to you to decide if Samsung meets any of the criteria to get it:

1) That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case,2) That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted,3) That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction4) That the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest.

Samsung won't get it as it doesn't look like they would meet any of the criteria, but even still, they could get damages for it when the trial does come up. And considering how badly Samsung's lawyers botched their last trial with late filings resulting in evidence being barred from being shown, it would be a good idea for Samsung to get their shit done on time and properly this time.

Honest question: What is the point of filing a lawsuit to ban sales of a technology product when the suit won't even be heard until well over a year after said product is released? Unless you could ban the iPhone 5 for like the first six months after its intended launch, I don't see how it's worth investing the time or money in something like this.

I agree it seems absolutely absurd but...as with the recent case of Apple vs Samsung - Apple went after the Galaxy S2 and other phone models that are pretty outdated in our rapidly evolving technology standards. BUT... once they won it gave them (Apple) a precedent to go after the newest phones like they're doing with the Galaxy S3 now. I don't know that their case for banning the S3 will move that much faster now, but it does establish a precedent moving forward to bolster up future cases.

Honest question: What is the point of filing a lawsuit to ban sales of a technology product when the suit won't even be heard until well over a year after said product is released? Unless you could ban the iPhone 5 for like the first six months after its intended launch, I don't see how it's worth investing the time or money in something like this.

If it's determined the case has merits and can go forward, the possibilty of a preliminary injunction comes into play. Sammy would probably have to put up a bond for potential lost sales by Apple in case they eventually lose, but it would shut the iPhone out of the US market until either Apple changed the phone, settled or won the case.

And considering that unlike Samsung, Apple only has one current model, this would do a lot more damage to Apple.

Also: The LTE patents in this case are not FRAND encumbered as far as I can tell. However, the Qualcomm licensing may be a factor.

Can Samsung afford the bond over an iPhone 5 injunction? If we assume 80m a reasonable cap on iPhone 5s sold in the next 4 quarters in the US and $400 per iPhone then Samsung would need to provide a $32b bond. Last I heard Samsung only had $10b available, possibly $15b?

In other words, the bond is the maximum amount of damages Apple can extract from Samsung if the injunction is found to be improper. The reason why 80m is reasonable? Apple sold 9m in the US in the 1st calendar quarter.

Not true... Sammy won in Germany as well, and if memory serves me right in some other places in the EU. The US seems the only place that has not gone in Sammy's favor... which is kinda strange

I guess it depends on how you view 'winning' - I assume you refer to the recent case of the touch patents brought to the court by Apple - but I will rephrase - Samsung has not won against Apple in anything Samsung initiated outside of Korea.